On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Immanuel, Gidado-Yisa wrote:
> How about VIPs :)
> a. Very Important Pieces
> b. View In Pieces (hmmm...kind of has a negative connotation)
>
> or how about
>
> Tiles
>
> (just finished redoing a kitchen floor)
>
I like it (tiles) :-)
Craig
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cedric Dumoulin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:53 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: New name for Components / Extended Templates?
> >
> >
> >
> > As Components can be used to build "views" of the MVC
> > framework, it could
> > be interesting to have the term "view" in the new name.
> > I have thought about "viewlet", but this is already used ;-).
> > Maybe "viewparts" or "viewpieces" ? This sound nice and can
> > reflect the
> > fact that framework is for building views by assembling
> > parts/pieces of
> > view.
> > Comments ?
> >
> > Cedric
> >
> > Cedric Dumoulin wrote:
> >
> > > Components / Extended Templates framework will be added to Struts
> > > shortly.
> > >
> > > It is now the last chance to rename this framework if necessary.
> > >
> > > Primary idea of the framework was to allow building of JSP pages by
> > > assembling reusable pieces of code, called blocks or
> > components. One of
> > > the aims is to provide a library of easily reusable components (like
> > > standard layouts, but also reusable menus, common login
> > form, shopping
> > > card, ...).
> > > Templating mechanism is naturally done with the framework, but
> > > framework can also provide a starting point for reusable components.
> > >
> > > So what's wrong with name "components" ? Component is a
> > broad term in
> > > English, and it may be confusing when people talk about Struts
> > > components in general. So maybe we should change actual Components
> > > framework name.
> > >
> > > Why not renaming "Components" to "templates" ? Framework
> > allow more
> > > than templating, If we call it "templates", I am afraid that people
> > > identify framework
> > > with only the template mechanism, missing the ability to
> > define reusable
> > > piece of pages. Also, this would break the actual templates
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > After discussions with Ted Husted, we propose following
> > alternatives
> > > :
> > >
> > > Framework name package name
> > > JSP pieces / Extended Templates
> > > (as a play on Java Faces ;-) jsp-pieces or pieces
> > > JSP Blocks jsp-blocks or blocks
> > > Dynamic Templates templates
> > >
> > > My preference goes to (JSP pieces / Extended Templates),
> > jsp-pieces.
> > >
> > > I need your opinion on this renaming :
> > >
> > > * Do we really need to do it ? (A lot of peoples already use
> > > components. This could lead to troubles)
> > > * Which name do you prefer / propose ?
> > >
> > > Cedric
> >
>
